Matt Brown wrote:
You don't have a userpage in order to exercise any "right" to free speech, but because it helps the project; it aids communication and makes people happy. You never did have the right to say anything you pleased there; disruptiveness has always been unacceptable.
It seems to me that many of our recent social problems could be reduced by changing the culture that actively discourages editing other people's user pages. Remember, they are on a wiki, and subject to the same GFDL and "merciless editing" as anything else. Instead of having the uproars incited by deletions and blocking, just edit away. You don't have to be an administrator to help out, either.
And yes, I think it follows from this that there are circumstances under which someone could appropriately be blocked for violating the three-revert rule in their own user space. I would defer to individual preferences on almost all matters, but disruptive use of user pages should be treated like disruptive editing anywhere else.
--Michael Snow
On 2/9/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
You don't have a userpage in order to exercise any "right" to free speech, but because it helps the project; it aids communication and makes people happy. You never did have the right to say anything you pleased there; disruptiveness has always been unacceptable.
It seems to me that many of our recent social problems could be reduced by changing the culture that actively discourages editing other people's user pages. Remember, they are on a wiki, and subject to the same GFDL and "merciless editing" as anything else. Instead of having the uproars incited by deletions and blocking, just edit away. You don't have to be an administrator to help out, either.
And yes, I think it follows from this that there are circumstances under which someone could appropriately be blocked for violating the three-revert rule in their own user space. I would defer to individual preferences on almost all matters, but disruptive use of user pages should be treated like disruptive editing anywhere else.
--Michael Snow _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It makes people happy for a reason. It gives them their own little corner on the site which is "theirs". If anyone was able to edit my userspace, it would no doubt kill the formatting I like so much, and who is to say the links I need to work effectively will remain? If editing of userpages wasn't discouraged, who says we wouldn't get more disputes (which are now confined to other pages). If there's things clearly unacceptable for userpages like rants, attacks, and certain disruptive things, we should simply state those outright and take action against those who break those rules.
Mgm
On 2/9/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
It makes people happy for a reason. It gives them their own little corner on the site which is "theirs". If anyone was able to edit my userspace, it would no doubt kill the formatting I like so much, and who is to say the links I need to work effectively will remain? If editing of userpages wasn't discouraged, who says we wouldn't get more disputes (which are now confined to other pages). If there's things clearly unacceptable for userpages like rants, attacks, and certain disruptive things, we should simply state those outright and take action against those who break those rules.
By the same token, we should feel free to edit user pages when they cross certain boundaries. Preferably clearly defined ones.
Editing other people's user pages at other times doesn't seem to have much benefit. If someone writes on their page their beliefs and standards (as Jimbo does), and someone else edits that, what does the page mean afterwards?
Steve
On 2/9/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/9/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
It makes people happy for a reason. It gives them their own little
corner on
the site which is "theirs". If anyone was able to edit my userspace, it would no doubt kill the formatting I like so much, and who is to say the links I need to work effectively will remain? If editing of userpages wasn't discouraged, who says we wouldn't get
more
disputes (which are now confined to other pages). If there's things
clearly
unacceptable for userpages like rants, attacks, and certain disruptive things, we should simply state those outright and take action against
those
who break those rules.
By the same token, we should feel free to edit user pages when they cross certain boundaries. Preferably clearly defined ones.
Editing other people's user pages at other times doesn't seem to have much benefit. If someone writes on their page their beliefs and standards (as Jimbo does), and someone else edits that, what does the page mean afterwards?
Steve
My point exactly. Like with deletion templates, you should be able to trust what's in someone's userspace as their opinion. Allowing editing without VERY strict rules will give POV pushers, vandals and people with an axe to grind free play.
Mgm
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:21:29 +0100, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/9/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
It makes people happy for a reason. It gives them their own little corner on the site which is "theirs". If anyone was able to edit my userspace, it would no doubt kill the formatting I like so much, and who is to say the links I need to work effectively will remain? If editing of userpages wasn't discouraged, who says we wouldn't get more disputes (which are now confined to other pages). If there's things clearly unacceptable for userpages like rants, attacks, and certain disruptive things, we should simply state those outright and take action against those who break those rules.
By the same token, we should feel free to edit user pages when they cross certain boundaries. Preferably clearly defined ones.
<snip>
If you leave a verbose edit summary and explain the edit on theyr talk page you can usualy get away with editing other people's pages if you have a good reason (though there are still some knee jerk reverts), but there are a few users who consider *any* edit (beyond simple typo fixing) of theyr userpage to be vandalism regardles, and they can be extremely vocal about it.
Things like removing fair use images for example should be uncontroversial, at least if explained properly (though after some complains I have none the less started asking people to remove them themselves instead, and give them a few days before I intervene). When it comes to removing offensive material things are more "tricky", users who put such things on theyr userpage tend to be attention seeking and/or "troublemakers" in the first place, so when "the man" comes alog and mess with theyr page they are far more likely to declare all our war over it.
On 2/9/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/9/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
You don't have a userpage in order to exercise any "right" to free speech, but because it helps the project; it aids communication and makes people happy. You never did have the right to say anything you pleased there; disruptiveness has always been unacceptable.
It seems to me that many of our recent social problems could be reduced by changing the culture that actively discourages editing other people's user pages. Remember, they are on a wiki, and subject to the same GFDL and "merciless editing" as anything else. Instead of having the uproars incited by deletions and blocking, just edit away. You don't have to be an administrator to help out, either.
And yes, I think it follows from this that there are circumstances under which someone could appropriately be blocked for violating the three-revert rule in their own user space. I would defer to individual preferences on almost all matters, but disruptive use of user pages should be treated like disruptive editing anywhere else.
It makes people happy for a reason. It gives them their own little corner on the site which is "theirs". If anyone was able to edit my userspace, it would no doubt kill the formatting I like so much, and who is to say the links I need to work effectively will remain? If editing of userpages wasn't discouraged, who says we wouldn't get more disputes (which are now confined to other pages). If there's things clearly unacceptable for userpages like rants, attacks, and certain disruptive things, we should simply state those outright and take action against those who break those rules.
I agree with Matt and especially with Michael.
I don't think setting down hard guidelines as to what is and is not acceptable is sufficient; it invites ruleslawyering. I don't advocate disruptive editing of user pages, such as changing the text someone has written to make it untrue, and I don't think anyone else is either. But the current culture is such that many people think no one else should be allowed to touch your user page, even if you have on it material which is disruptive, offensive, or otherwise generally not acceptable to the rest of the community.
User pages don't belong to the user, they belong to the project. It's been generally beneficial to let people have a fair bit of leeway with this, as Matt said: it aids communication and makes people happy. But ultimately, if you want unrestricted free speech, this isn't the place; it belongs on your own personal website. If you want to be part of this project, you are expected to follow community standards, and if you don't like them, to try to change them rather than act against them.
Rants, polemics, attacks, these don't aid communication; they pit people against each other. Shiny little boxes claiming that some particular political figure is an idiot, that some religious philosophy is stupid, that some sexual orientation is immoral, that some nation shouldn't exist, that some other user is a menace to the project -- all of which I have seen in the past few weeks -- start an argument that no one else can respond to, because it's on your user page that no one can touch.
*Most* people have pages that are completely fine. I like seeing what people choose to say about themselves and their work, and how they choose to say it. I think we should continue to have user pages, and continue to give people a fair bit of leeway with what they choose to say on them. Removing someone's toolbox links, breaking their formatting, putting attacks or POV or untruths or even some minor but unnecessary change that the user doesn't like on someone's user page should be simply reverted. In most cases what the user prefers should be what stands. But when you're informed that the content of your page is not acceptable, you should be expected to change it or to let others do so, and yes, to run afoul of site policy if you continue to refuse.
-Kat
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:LucidWaking "To enjoy freedom, we must control ourselves." - Viriginia Woolf
On 2/9/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
some nation shouldn't exist, that some other user is a menace to the project -- all of which I have seen in the past few weeks -- start an argument that no one else can respond to, because it's on your user page that no one can touch.
This is an excellent point that deserves repeating somewhere. Starting an argument on your userpage is wrong because it can't be rebutted. Therefore you shouldn't have anything on your userpage which constitutes a starting point for an argument. "I am a Catholic" satisfies that, but "George Bush is dumb" doesn't.
I like this as a dividing line. No opinions, basically. Objective facts about yourself, but no opinions which people might disagree with. It's just not the place.
Steve
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Kat Walsh
User pages don't belong to the user, they belong to the project. It's been generally beneficial to let people have a fair bit of leeway with this, as Matt said: it aids communication and makes people happy. But ultimately, if you want unrestricted free speech, this isn't the place; it belongs on your own personal website. If you want to be part of this project, you are expected to follow community standards, and if you don't like them, to try to change them rather than act against them.
An editor's user page should present the editor AS A WIKIPEDIAN. It's where people go if they click on a user name. If someone wants to check on your contributions to what is supposed to be a serious fact-filled encyclopaedia, then how they judge your edits may well be affected by how they are struck by your user page.
I'd be inclined to question the validity of statements made in articlespace if the editor had a user page saying that he believed in alien abduction, flatearthness, tolerance for paedophilia and, yeah, freedom of speech.
In fact I'd probably say to myself, if I didn't know any better, "This thing is being written by fork-tailed ranting lunatics!"
Peter (Skyring)
On 2/9/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
It makes people happy for a reason. It gives them their own little corner on the site which is "theirs". If anyone was able to edit my userspace, it would no doubt kill the formatting I like so much, and who is to say the links I need to work effectively will remain?
Why don't you try it? Anybody who wishes can edit my userpage. I'll remove stuff I dislike intensely, but basically it's just like any other part of the wiki.
Presently my userpage is just a redirect to my talk page, but if someone wants to have a go at producing a userpage for me I've no objection.